Will 95gr VLD make it at 800m?

[RegionRat]

No worries @284winner . I don't doubt your observations on bullet impacts, just the causes.

I am just glad you are not angry with me for trying.

 

[jelenko]

Does Bryan Litz have a position on whether heavier bullets with the same BC are more resistant to wind?

 

[284winner]

No worries @284winner . I don't doubt your observations on bullet impacts, just the causes.

I am just glad you are not angry with me for trying.

No issues at all. I can only go with my personal experiences. I always believed those calculators and the numbers and they are pretty much spot on providing the input is accurate. I just found it isn't that simple in all conditions. If it were, there'd be alot less big bore rifles in ELR.

 

[RegionRat]

IF what you are saying is the case, why are there not more 7mm and/or 30 caliber ELR rigs if the heavy 7s and 30s equal the bigger 338/375s when they offer much less recoil ? The answer is simple. I explained it.

Still waiting on the ladies, so here goes. When at an ELR match where someone can see their splash using a lighter recoil gun with a better BC, they will win. It is just hard to guarantee the splash of a low energy hit, and energy matters just as much as trajectory, mass or BC when the issue isn't to just cut a piece of paper.

Again, the real world contains other reasons for this, it isn't because the BC is lying or the ballistic solvers are wrong.

Whenever you see a bad outcome from the ballistic solver, isn't it because we have over simplified the wind and pressure input? It isn't because mass isn't accounted for in the BC.

Yes, heavier bullets often come with better BC values, but when a lighter bullet has the same BC as the heavier one and you throw them at the same speed, they fly the same in both wind and drop.

When I lob 16" shells for miles, the BC isn't wrong if I miss, but I may not know the winds aloft or the pressure where I am landing. If I launched two shells of equal BC but different mass at the same time, at the same speed, they land according the the BC, not their mass. Is that not the same as an ELR topic?

For example, it was difficult to find an example case with a 20% difference in mass but an equal BC, yet I gave the best samples I could use to illustrate the issue. Now to your point... That isn't the same as saying all calibers shoot at the same speed, recoil, efficiency etc. But... It is saying the BC answers for the windage if they are at equal speeds regardless of their mass.

Now, as far as jumping to ELR and why we would use a smaller mass with equal BC versus a bigger heavier one, the actual energy levels you can place into a cartridge design also come into play at the target. Our example above had to be used to illustrate the BC accounts for mass, and it does the same at ELR. Even the drops matched in the example of that 6.5 versus 7mm at 2800 fps. So why don't we see smaller calibers at ELR matches?

When you go down the bullet charts as mass increases, doesn't the energy of the typical rigs using them also increase? As the mass increases, as often as not the BC is also increasing.

So it isn't for the reason you think, but in reality it is because I have to step up the energy level to get hits at distance and that includes velocity. However, if the velocity and BC match, so does their trajectory even if the mass does not.

If we got on the ELR lines with an equal muzzle speed in 338 on one side, and a 7mm on the other, and they had a hypothetical equal BC yet different mass, the reason folks would still pick the 338 is to see their splash, not because their trajectory was different. In the real world, energy on target also matters.

When folks learned that getting just enough energy at the target with a higher BC meant winning, you did in fact see lighter bullets and calibers dominate the field. Take silhouette as an example, if the energy required to knock down the plate at 600 yards is enough in a 7-08, why would anyone bring a magnum 30? The simple answer is those heavier 30 magnum bullets don't buck wind as you think and they loose to the 7-08.

So ELR works with BC just like pellet guns or 16" artillery, but sometimes energy on target matters too, so we have to bring enough gun. Not because the BC isn't true. YMMV

ETA: For the life of me I am able to predict the trajectory of a dumb bomb in the wind, but I can't predict how long my girls will take getting their hair done....

 

[284winner]

Still waiting on the ladies, so here goes. When at an ELR match where someone can see their splash using a lighter recoil gun with a better BC, they will win. It is just hard to guarantee the splash of a low energy hit, and energy matters just as much as trajectory, mass or BC when the issue isn't to just cut a piece of paper.

Again, the real world contains other reasons for this, it isn't because the BC is lying or the ballistic solvers are wrong.

Whenever you see a bad outcome from the ballistic solver, isn't it because we have over simplified the wind and pressure input? It isn't because mass isn't accounted for in the BC.

Yes, heavier bullets often come with better BC values, but when a lighter bullet has the same BC as the heavier one and you throw them at the same speed, they fly the same in both wind and drop.

When I lob 16" shells for miles, the BC isn't wrong if I miss, but I may not know the winds aloft or the pressure where I am landing. If I launched two shells of equal BC but different mass at the same time, at the same speed, they land according the the BC, not their mass. Is that not the same as an ELR topic?

For example, it was difficult to find an example case with a 20% difference in mass but an equal BC, yet I gave the best samples I could use to illustrate the issue. Now to your point... That isn't the same as saying all calibers shoot at the same speed, recoil, efficiency etc. But... It is saying the BC answers for the windage if they are at equal speeds regardless of their mass.

Now, as far as jumping to ELR and why we would use a smaller mass with equal BC versus a bigger heavier one, the actual energy levels you can place into a cartridge design also come into play at the target. Our example above had to be used to illustrate the BC accounts for mass, and it does the same at ELR. Even the drops matched in the example of that 6.5 versus 7mm at 2800 fps. So why don't we see smaller calibers at ELR matches?

When you go down the bullet charts as mass increases, doesn't the energy of the typical rigs using them also increase? As the mass increases, as often as not the BC is also increasing.

So it isn't for the reason you think, but in reality it is because I have to step up the energy level to get hits at distance and that includes velocity. However, if the velocity and BC match, so does their trajectory even if the mass does not.

If we got on the ELR lines with an equal muzzle speed in 338 on one side, and a 7mm on the other, and they had a hypothetical equal BC yet different mass, the reason folks would still pick the 338 is to see their splash, not because their trajectory was different. In the real world, energy on target also matters.

When folks learned that getting just enough energy at the target with a higher BC meant winning, you did in fact see lighter bullets and calibers dominate the field. Take silhouette as an example, if the energy required to knock down the plate at 600 yards is enough in a 7-08, why would anyone bring a magnum 30? The simple answer is those heavier 30 magnum bullets don't buck wind as you think and they loose to the 7-08.

So ELR works with BC just like pellet guns or 16" artillery, but sometimes energy on target matters too, so we have to bring enough gun. Not because the BC isn't true. YMMV

I think the BCs are accurate, that's not the problem. Splash or impact isn't my issue either using a LR camera. I see impacts easy on 4x8 dry wall sheets of the steel isn't impacted very easily on the camera. That's how I aquire the information is by the bullet impacts. There are technically no misses as they all hit the wall board. I know I can't make you believe what I'm saying is what's actually happening. I believe it is as do many of the ELR guys. Maybe not to the extent I do but I think it's pretty solid data that I've gained. Again, many more shooters here have alot more experience than I do on this subject but doing the range work is a great learning experience for me and I'll never stop learning. I also get it wrong alot and sure don't mind admitting it.

 

[BoydAllen]

BCs are based on the rate at which a bullet loses velocity but for wind there may be another variable that is involved, mass divided by profile area. Another thing, during several online discussions of the mechanism of wind drift in which most stoutly assert that wind does not blow bullets sideways, and all of the attendant explanations, I have asked, given those explanations, tell me how it works with a round ball? Mull that over for a bit.

 

[Thauglor]

I have not seen what you have at all, and I have had to estimate wind holds on things that most normal folks will never have to as part of my job. You are entitled to your own disbelief, but beginners reading here should not go down that path as a result because the vast experience of the industry and the models are well established.

I too was skeptical as a young start in the business, but as a young student scientist I had much to learn from the ballisticians at my company, the national labs, and armories. We all get to learn in different ways but you must remember that it is one thing to have your own suspicions about external ballistics and another to lead more folks down the wrong path about solidly established ballistics.

If you have low or little faith in your ballistic solver in terms of the ability to predict windage of a common small arm, there is probably not more I can do or say to convince you, but while I wait on my girls I will try to prevent some youngsters from accepting the wrong theory.

There is lots of nuance to internal ballistics when it comes to pushing state of the art, on that we can all agree. We can hardly predict things when it comes to group size or what matters when it comes to BR level shooting. We let the competition at well attended events establish our expectation of performance level should be. But when it comes to the bit about external ballistics being discussed here, we are in a pretty secure place with ballistic solvers that you can play with for free on the internet. I have already run the examples in post #13 above.

I am not calling you out, and please don't take this post the wrong way. As what I hope becomes a favor to you and the rest, allow me to bring the benefit of a long career where I was responsible for putting ordinance on targets. For practical purposes, you can give yourself a better intuition by playing with the results of the ballistics solvers if you don't want to drag yourself through a whole study of ballistics.

You need not take the word of a retired aerospace/defence guy. I have no idea what you saw on that day, or what your experience is when it comes to playing with something like a Kestrel and a ballistic solver over a very wide variety of projectile weights, but imagine the uproar of complaints if those were all as wrong as you are suggesting?

Here is an example set you can run for yourself that helps illustrate why your observations were an anomaly of the day and not the way things work.

If we standardize on a 15 mph full value wind and distance of 1000 yards to make this simple. Take your favorite ballistics solver and estimate the windage of two bullets of equal BC and as much difference in mass as you can find. Since we are discussing bullet weight, I will try to find real ones with as much difference as possible but with the same BC to help illustrate the point.

Make the speeds the same and check the trajectory. Finding the examples isn't easy for the very reason that mass is part of BC, but I find the Berger 7mm 184 F-Open comes up in the 284 Win enough to be popular, and the heavy end of the Berger 6.5 153.5 would be good for illustration since the difference in mass is roughly 20% yet they closely match for BC. This should convince anyone who has used a modern ballistic solver and a Kestrel on an honest range to estimate wind.

Berger 7mm 184 F-Open G7 0.356 @2800 fps ..................................... wind drift is 87.16"
Berger 6.5mm 153.3 Long Range Hybrid G7 0.356 @2800 fps ....... wind drift is 87.16"

In fact, even their drop would be identical even though there is a 20% difference in their mass. So, at the same given speed, with a matched BC, your earlier observations would have been due to a bad day and not the difference in weight because the BC accounts for it. YMMV

You missed the point entirely, 284 was talking about ballistic solvers vs real world experience, you are just spouting out ballistic solver output that anyone on this site can do. The heavier calibers seem to keep winning when the win is blowing

 

[284winner]

You missed the point entirely, 284 was talking about ballistic solvers vs real world experience, you are just spouting out ballistic solver output that anyone on this site can do. The heavier calibers seem to keep winning when the win is blowing

Not saying they are not correct because they are. Punch in accurate information and you'll get back accurate results in perfect shooting conditions. I just found that once things get ugly outside, that gauge isn't necessarily a great indicator of things on paper when comparing two different projectiles both being very different in weight but equal numbers otherwise. That's just been my experience.

 

[RegionRat]

You missed the point entirely, 284 was talking about ballistic solvers vs real world experience, you are just spouting out ballistic solver output that anyone on this site can do. The heavier calibers seem to keep winning when the win is blowing

I'm pretty sure I am catching the gist of 284winner's observations and issues, it is just that the observations he is making are probably due to some other cause. He isn't mistaken about his observations, he is mistaken about the applicability to external ballistics with respect to how a BC works in a solver and on targets.

Much work has gone into the external ballistic solvers and BC measurements for the DoD, and much into the public domain versions. I used the word "much" and it is an understatement. The solvers and BC definitions are not as wrong or off as the discussion would lead folks to believe.

And yes, I went out of my way to use a public domain ballistics solver that anyone can run, and real world bullets anyone can buy, to illustrate the point.

..."The heavier calibers seem to keep winning when the wind is blowing" ... concept went out the door before you and I were born, and probably before our fathers were born too. I don't know how old you are @Thauglor but "Heavy for caliber" has been the new norm, not "heavier caliber", and further, not just for the sake of adding mass, but in order to get higher BC.

Before the public internet, before the Applied Ballistics books, and even before Bryan Litz was a new hire, some of us were busy with the Cold War and developing those systems you now use.

At the start of my career, we still had 55 grain ball ammo, before I was done we had 62 and 77. We had 150 and 168 in 30 cal, and we now have 175. That wasn't done just for the sake of weight, it was done to get the BC up.

Many of us took heat to argue for higher BC before there was such a thing as a online solver, and wasted too much energy on politicians and stubborn bureaucrats. I don't mind discussing ballistics or ammunition with folks, but if it starts to become too much like the bad old days of the bureaucrats I will take a hard pass and go back to my own loading.

If you have been paying attention to the shooting sports at all, you would have noticed the prevalence of smaller calibers and higher BC bullets over bigger heavier calibers. That applies across the board, unless we are discussing energy on target. For the sake of beginners, consider that there are many times when a lighter more efficient high BC bullet in a smaller caliber wins in the wind. It is not rare. That is not to say that if you take a heavier equal BC and push it faster, that you won't win, but then you have to push it faster.

You see far more 6 Dashers in PRS, not 300 Win Mags. You see far more 284 Win on the 1000 yard lines than 300 Win Mags. You see more 7-08 in silhouette then you will 7 Mag. You see far more 33 cals than 50s at ELR events too. I could go on and on. All those games started out with "heavier calibers" and now gravitate toward high BC, which often means heavy for caliber bullets.

So... Maybe you missed the point entirely. We were discussing an equal BC and velocity at a different mass, with respect to windage. Do you know of any examples where the results of windage flipped when the BC and speeds were equal just because of the mass?

I wasn't just "spouting" ballistic solver values for my own sake. I was trying to prevent more inexperienced minds from starting down the wrong path before they do their homework. YMMV

 

[Thauglor]

The point as I understood it is that 2 bullets, with the same BC, but one of larger mass, the one of larger mass will, in the real world, suffer less in the wind (even though BC and calculators say they wont). So yes, you did miss the point on using calculators only. I guess I should have said larger calibers, not heavier, as you are dissecting my words but not arguing my point.

You also keep bringing up how people win with smaller calibers. That could be due to less recoil so easier to shoot more accurately or just more people shooting it. My argument is that when the wind is blowing, you will see the larger (and hence heaver) bullets winning more often.

And what is this wrong path you are trying to prevent people from going down on? No one (at least not me) has suggested not to use high BC bullets...

 

[RegionRat]

The point as I understood it is that 2 bullets, with the same BC, but one of larger mass, the one of larger mass will, in the real world, suffer less in the wind (even though BC and calculators say they wont). So yes, you did miss the point on using calculators only. I guess I should have said larger calibers, not heavier, as you are dissecting my words but not arguing my point.

You also keep bringing up how people win with smaller calibers. That could be due to less recoil so easier to shoot more accurately or just more people shooting it. My argument is that when the wind is blowing, you will see the larger (and hence heaver) bullets winning more often.

And what is this wrong path you are trying to prevent people from going down on? No one (at least not me) has suggested not to use high BC bullets...

Wrong in the understanding of the first premise.
That two bullets of equal BC at the same speed, but different mass, will have a windage advantage for the heavier one.

It isn't some difference in practical field experience or some shortage in the ballistic solvers, but likely some misunderstanding on what the winds were that day or someone didn't crank their values to see why they had those results.

Wrong in terms of the words that a heavy caliber will win in bigger winds. It has to bring both a higher BC and higher velocity or it will not be any advantage and as you say, the recoil will cost you.

How bullets relate to each other, their drag coefficients, and their BC is well established. Sophisticated ballistics studies date back to 1850, and have made progress with the paradigm shifts in technology.

Good Luck to the beginners. You end up having to sort through all the rocks to get to the gems.
Try Modern Exterior Ballistics of Symmetric Projectiles, McCoy
Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, Litz
These are not magazine writers, but you can get through the Litz book without being an engineer or mathematician. YMMV

 

[Ned Ludd]

The point as I understood it is that 2 bullets, with the same BC, but one of larger mass, the one of larger mass will, in the real world, suffer less in the wind (even though BC and calculators say they wont). So yes, you did miss the point on using calculators only. I guess I should have said larger calibers, not heavier, as you are dissecting my words but not arguing my point.

You also keep bringing up how people win with smaller calibers. That could be due to less recoil so easier to shoot more accurately or just more people shooting it. My argument is that when the wind is blowing, you will see the larger (and hence heaver) bullets winning more often.

And what is this wrong path you are trying to prevent people from going down on? No one (at least not me) has suggested not to use high BC bullets...

He's trying to enlighten those that may not be up to speed on external ballistics such that when they read someone's statement that the wind drift of a heavier bullet with a given BC is markedly less than that of a lighter bullet with the same BC, that they don't necessarily take this as a proven or demonstrable fact, because it isn't.

It is impossible to prove that current external ballistic formulas are not "missing something", as those that think a heavier bullet with the same BC as a lighter bullet exhibits less wind deflection wish to believe. Likewise, until such a "missing factor" in current ballistic algorithms has actually been identified and defined, it is also impossible to prove that such a "missing factor" does not exist. Until such time as this "missing factor" is identified and characterized, people will believe what they wish to believe, and their beliefs are likely to be based largely on bullet behavior they have personally observed. The caveat to this is that the wind behavior may be very different for two different shots, even if they were taken within seconds of one another. Further, the actual wind condition at the time of each shot is difficult, if not impossible, to directly "see" or "quantify". So such opinions are largely observational, rather than quantifiable.

I have shot a .223 with 90 VLDs for many years in F-TR. I have often seen people complain that at distances greater than about 800 yd, the 90 VLDs somehow exhibit much greater wind deflection than the BC/velocity suggest they should. I have also seen similar claims that .30 cal bullets such as the 185 Juggernaut with a comparable BC as the 90 VLD undergo less wind deflection than the lighter 90 VLDs. I have shot both out to 1000 yd on many, many occasions and never once observed this unexplained behavior. In my hands, the 90 VLDs behave relative to the .30 cal bullets I shoot exactly as the advertised BC/velocity suggests they should. That is, they exhibit slightly better resistance to wind deflection than the Juggernauts, about the same as the 185 Hybrids, and clearly show greater wind deflection than the [much] higher BC 200.20X bullet. My observations do not prove there is no "missing factor" in ballistics algorithms any more than someone else's observations prove there is. However, the main difference is that my observations match the predictions from existing external ballistic formulas without the need of a "missing factor" to explain them.

Regardless of where one stands on this issue, the safest thing is to keep both an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism when reading about such topics on an internet shooting forum.

Edited to add: to the OP, go with the 105 Hybrids and don't look back. It has a BC that is approximately 15% higher than the 95 VLD and is an excellent bullet design. People have been shooting the 105s in 6BRs for many years in F-Class matches with outstanding results.

 

[JEFFPPC]

Yep.